Religion and Science

Religionand Science

Answerto question 1

Oneof the most interesting areas of human exploration is the study ofreligion and science. These two significant forces are explained byvarious theology and theories of science through differentconceptions such as mechanistic paradigm of science. There are threecentral pillars of mechanistic science as discussed in this paper.The first principle pillar concerns Newton who deduced that space andtime were homogenous, continuous, and absolute. According to him, notonly could space and time be quantified separately, be divided intounits that are uniform, but also the aim and motive of space and timewere limitless. The sensoriumof God wasthe term he used to refer space and time, owing to the fact that heconsidered these two quantities as aspects of the presence of God inthis world. Also, he thought that God influences the world throughtime and space (Barbour, 2000). In addition, he argued that time andspace were hollow since the utmost things and events in the physicalworld were accommodated by them.

Thesecond pillar holds an assumption that a concrete cause comes beforea specific effect, which means that a specific state of matterproduces a further state of matter. Moreover, it was assumed thatthorough knowledge of the whole universe state of matter would makefuture predictions more accurate than ever. In other words, this iswhat is called determinism.

Thethird mechanistic pillar holds the assumption that the existence ofthe physical world is independent of people’s minds and how peopleperceive it has no effects on its structure (Barbour, 2000). Overtime, the twentieth century developments in science have cautiouslyoverturned these pillars. To start with, Einstein’s relativitytheory dismisses the assumption that time and space are independentand absolute variables by stating that space is somehow curved anddoes not extend indefinitely in all courses of direction. Thedeterminist thought that proposes causal effects is overturned by thenotion that in the atom’s microscopic world probability does exist.According to Barbour (2000), the third pillar has been dismissed bythe quantum theory, which recognizes the role of the observer.

Answerto question 2

Ifthe development of life was led by a series of very slim chances,then the life of human was unexceptionally unexpected. Some theoristsargue that chance is the only way life appeared. If this is so,various theologians argue that maintenance and origin of life hasbeen a mystery due to a whole scope of unexpected coincidences. Thismeans that the survival and emergence of life is determined by chanceco-incidence of various factors such as the Planet’s distance fromthe sun, the planet size, the circulation and existence of theoceans, planet’s tilt of its axis, planet’s relative consistenttemperature, and the recurrent making of oxygen by all living things,and well balanced atmospheric gases (McGrath, 2011). However, Grahamcairns-Smith stated that it would be difficult for moleculecomplexity that is responsible for DNA of human to take place bychance in the amount of cosmic history time. He further states thatthe human DNA is composed of nucleotide chains of complex molecules,which in this case are four. These chains are linked to each other bya chronology of 30 atoms. Such a complexity according to Cairns-Smithimplies that at least one hundred and forty separate bio-chemicalincidents take place in the proper series by chance (Barbour, 2000).Thus, he maintains that world and time cannot be said to be enoughfor the emergence of human life. This is to say that although someaspects of life can appear by chance. It is very hard for the humanDNA to present itself by chance due to its complexities, which meansthat life is not purely of material origin or purely determined bychance evolution.

Answerto question 3

Theidea of creator God is compatible with the conception of a mechanicaluniverse since the opponents of this science believed that nature waslike a machine that required God to push it regularly, for it to keepon functioning. Other researchers argued that the mechanisticphilosophy played a hand in getting rid of supernaturalism andmystical ideas of spirits, demons, and other magical aspects thatwere opposed to the bible. Others like Hobbes tried to eliminate thenotion of God from nature’s mechanistic conception, which did notgarner him followers. Many people believed that an intelligentdesigner was behind the consistent laws as disclosed by the scienceof Newton. According to McGrath (2011), the utmost rationality of theuniverse could be confirmed by causality, distinct and cleardescriptions of the physical reality, and mathematical and uniformityaspect of time and space. This statement attracts a question if anorderly universe as described above could emerge from nothing.

Thisquestion is answered by the quantum theory, which was opposed to thisorderliness of the universe. Therefore, the quantum world of chanceand probability is incompatible with the idea of a creator. ForEinstein, accepting the actuality and autonomy of the external worldwas what was fundamental for science. Thus, assuming that the humanmind was a means of the world’s order contravenes the fundamentalidea of science (McGrath, 2011). In addition, assuming that particlescould emerge out of nowhere then vanish was abhorrence. Ifexperiments showed that this was a possibility, it is because thehuman knowledge was insufficient, and not that reality wasessentially illogical and inconsistent like that.


Barbour,I. (2000). WhenScience Meets Religion.San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

McGrath,E. A. (2011). Scienceand Religion:A New Introduction. New Jersey: John Wiley &amp Sons.